Systems and methods for providing recommendations based on collaborative and/or content-based nodal interrelationships

ABSTRACT

In selected embodiments a recommendation generator builds a network of interrelationships between venues, reviewers and users based on their attributes and reviewer and user reviews of the venues. Each interrelationship or link may be positive or negative and may accumulate with other links to provide nodal links the strength of which are based on commonality of attributes among the linked nodes and/or common preferences that one node, such as a reviewer, expresses for other nodes, such as venues. The links may be first order (based on a direct relationship between, for instance, a reviewer and a venue) or higher order (based on, for instance, the fact that two venue are both liked by a given reviewer). The recommendation engine in certain embodiments determines recommended venues based on user attributes and venue preferences by aggregating the link matrices and determining the venues which are most strongly coupled to the user.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.13/247,289 filed on Sep. 28, 2011, the entire contents of each of whichare incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND

Search engines may output lists of hyperlinks for web pages that includeinformation of interest. Some search engines base the determination ofcorresponding hyperlinks on a search query entered by the user. The goalof the search engine is to return links for high quality, relevant sitesbased on the search query. Most commonly, search engines accomplish thisby matching the terms in the search query to a database of stored webpages or web page content. Web pages that include the terms in thesearch query are considered “hits” and are included in the list ofhyperlinks presented to the user.

To increase efficacy of the search, a search engine may rank the list ofhits or hyperlinks according to the relevance or quality. For example,the search engine may assign a grade or rank to each hit, and the scoremay be assigned to correspond to the relevance or importance of the webpage. Conventional methods of determining importance or relevance arebased on the content of each web page including the link structure ofthe web page.

Many conventional search engines utilize an indexing system foridentifying web pages available on the Internet. The indexing systemidentifies words in the pages and creates an index of those words. Thesystem responds to user queries by analyzing the index and identifyingthe pages that are most relevant to the users query.

The relevance ranking or determination can be executed in various ways.The citation of one site or page by other sites or pages is sometimesused as one measure of relevance. Web page metadata is also sometimesused in a determination of relevance.

Neural networks have also been used in the field of Internet searching.It is assumed, for purposes of this description, that the reader isfamiliar with how neural networks operate. A neural network can consistof three basic aspects—a neuron or node, definitions of how the neuronsor nodes are interconnected or related to each other, and the manner inwhich that topology is updated over time.

SUMMARY

In selected embodiments a recommendation generator builds a network ofinterrelationships among venues, reviewers and users based on theirattributes and reviewer and user reviews of the venues. Eachinterrelationship or link may be positive or negative and may accumulatewith other links (or anti-links) to provide nodal links the strength ofwhich are based on commonality of attributes among the linked nodesand/or common preferences that one node, such as a reviewer, expressesfor other nodes, such as venues. The links may be first order (based ona direct relationship between, for instance, a reviewer and a venue) orhigher order (based on, for instance, the fact that two venue are bothliked by a given reviewer). The recommendation engine in certainembodiments determines recommended venues based on user attributes andvenue preferences by aggregating the link matrices and determining thevenues which are most strongly coupled to the user. The systemarchitecture in various embodiments may permit efficient, localizedupdating of the neural network in response to alteration of theattributes of various nodes.

The details of one or more implementations are set forth in theaccompanying drawing and description below. Other features, objects, andadvantages will be apparent from the description and drawings, and fromthe claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF FIGURES

FIG. 1A is a block diagram of an environment for developing andutilizing a network of interrelated nodes.

FIG. 1B is a diagram of a process flow executed by an exemplary contentcollection system.

FIG. 1C is a diagram of a process flow executed by an exemplary contentorganization system.

FIG. 2 is a diagram showing the interrelationships between venues,reviewers and users.

FIG. 3 is chart including reviewer ratings according to one example.

FIG. 4 is a chart including venue attributes according to one example.

FIG. 5 is a chart including reviewer attributes according to oneexample.

FIG. 6 is a chart including user attributes according to one example.

FIGS. 7A and 7B show a matrix of content-based venue links according toone example.

FIGS. 8A and 8B show a matrix of collaborative venue link according toone example.

FIG. 9 is a chart illustrating a recommendation generation according toone example.

FIG. 10 is a chart illustrating a connection grown according to oneexample.

FIG. 11 is a chart illustrating pre-normalization matrix data accordingto a second example.

FIG. 12 is a chart illustrating post-normalization matrix data accordingto a second example.

FIG. 13 is a chart illustrating connection creep according to a secondexample.

FIG. 14 is a user interface according to one example.

Like reference symbols in various drawing indicate like elements.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ILLUSTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATIONS Overview ofSelected Embodiments

In certain implementations a recommendation engine may generaterecommendations based on attributes and data associated with venues,users, reviewers and reviews. The system may harvest reviews generatedby various reviewing entities parse those reviews into an organizeddatabase of review data. That data may include attributes of the venue(such as a restaurant) and the rating or assessment provided by thereviewer. The system may also gather or generate data concerning theattributes of reviewer, such as gender, age, profession, marital status,review frequency and review accuracy. The system, in one implementation,also gathers data concerning the attributes of user, such as gender,age, profession, marital status, and affinity (whether positive ornegative) for certain venues.

The exemplary system may generate a neural network of interrelationshipsbased on venue attributes and reviewer attributes. For instance, venuesmay be linked by common features such as price, genre, attire, location,or affinity expressed by the same reviewer. Reviewers may be linked bypersonal characteristics or common affinities for certain venues.Reviewers and venues may be linked by common attributes of reviewerswith a given affinity for a specific venue or common venue attributesfor venues liked by a given reviewer.

The system may create interrelationships between and amongst venues andreviewers of different species. For instance, interrelated venues mayinclude restaurants, theaters, events and institutions. Interrelatedreviewers may include periodicals and individual reviewers.

Each link may incrementally strengthen or weaken the overallinterrelationship between two venues, a venue and a reviewer, or tworeviewers. Each link may affect neighboring links, either by causing theneighboring links to strengthen or weaken based on the magnitude of theorigin link. When two reference nodes (e.g. venues) are each connect toa common node (e.g., a venue), the system can generate an additionallink or interrelationship between the two reference nodes.

The interrelationships can be broadly categorized as collaborative andcontent-based. Collaborative relationships are a function of affinitiesexpressed by a given reviewer. Stated another way, collaborative linksare usually between things a given user likes, often irrespective of whythe user likes them. Content-based relationships are a function of thefeatures held in common among venues in a given subset. Stated anotherway, content-based links are usually between things within a group whichhave common features. Hybrids of these approaches may also be used, forexample, a link may identify venues among those liked by a givenreviewer which have features in common.

The neural network of interrelationships grows dynamically as furtherreview, reviewer and venue data is added. The system may continuouslyanalyze the data to add positive or negative collaborative links,content links, or content-collaborative links. The system may create newderivative links, normalize the data to adjust for data skew, and adjustlinks based on neighboring link values.

In various implementations the system may generate recommendations basedon user attributes and data associated with a recommendation request.The system may provide a plurality of recommendations based overall linkstrengths that factor in collaborative and content-basedinterrelationships. The recommendations may include venues complementaryto that specifically requested, for instance, in response to a userrequest for a restaurant recommendation the system may generate atheater or night club recommendation as well.

Exemplary System Architecture

FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary network architecture for a server-basedrecommendation generation system 100. It will be understood that some orall of the functionality described herein may be relocated to a clientdevice application (such as a smart phone application) based on theclient device's communication, data storage and computationalcapabilities.

The server 102 hosts a plurality of engines and modules. In thisapplication the user interface module 110 resides on the server 102 andserves web pages or suitable content to a client side application. Thecrawl and parsing module 114 executes the web crawling and source datacollection operations described below. The recommendation engine 112accesses the matrices of interrelationships and generates therecommendations according to the techniques described herein. Themerchant interface provides the functionality describe below concerningvenue operators' interaction with the server and accessing projectionsand reports generated thereby.

The data repository 118 stores the matrices of interrelationships. Therepository includes a matrix builder 126 which builds the datastructures reflecting the nodal interrelationships based on review data122 which is collected from review sites 106 by the crawl and parsingmodule 114. The matrix builder also incorporates venue, reviewer anduser data 124 collected from users 108, venues 104 and other web pages(by the crawl and parsing module 114).

The network 120 includes in certain embodiments the internet orworld-wide web. The network may also comprise proprietary andsemi-propriety networks such as cellular data networks, intranets, VPNs,or extranets.

Those skilled in the art will understand that the techniques describedherein may be implemented in various system and database topologies andconsistent with various computational methodologies. Topologies andmethodologies suitable for aspects of various embodiments are describedin K. R. Nichols, A Reconfigurable Computing Architecture forImplementing Artificial Neural Networks on FPGA, Master's Thesis, TheUniversity of Guelph, December 2003; F. Rosenblati, The Perception: AProbabilistic Model For Information Storage And Organization In TheBrain, Psychol, Rev., 65(6):386-408, 1958; K. Steinbuch and U. A. W.Piske; Learning Matrices and their Applications. IEEE Trans. Electron.Computers; 12:846-862, 1963; J. A Bamden, High-level Reasoning,Computational Challenges for Connectionism, and the Conposit solution.Appl. Intell., 5(2):103-135, April 1995; B. Denby, P. Garda, B. Granado,C. Kiesling, J.-c. Prevotet and A. Wassatch, Fast Triggering in HighEnergy Physics Experiments Using Hardware Neural Networks, IEEE Trans.On Neural Networks, 14(5):1010-1027, September 2003; R. O. Duda, P. E.Hart, and D. G. Stork. Pattern Classification. John Wiley & Sons, NewYork, 2nd edition, 2001; H. Eichenbaum, The Cognitive Neuroscience ofMemory: An Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002; K.Fukushima, Cognitron: A Self-Organizing Multilayered Neural Network,Bioi. Cybern, 20(3-4): 127-136, 5 Nov. 1975; K. Fukushima and S. Miyake.A Self-Organizing Neural Network With A Function Of Associative Memory:Feedback Type Cognitron, Bioi. Cybern., 28(4):201-208, 3 Mar. 1978; J.M. Fuster. Cortex and Mind: Unifying Cognition. Oxford University Press,New York, 2002; R. Gadea, J. Cerda, F. Ballesterand A. Mocholi,Artificial Neural Network Implementation On A Single FPGA Of A PipelinedOn-Line Backpropagation, ISSS 2000, Madrid, Spain, September 2000; S.Grossberg, Adaptive Pattern Classification And Universal Recoding: I.Parallel Development And Coding Of Neural Feature Detectors. Bioi.Cybern., 23(3):121-134, 30 Jul. 1976; S. Grossberg, Adaptive PatternClassification And Universal Recoding: II. Feedback, Expectation,Olfaction, Illusions, Bioi. Cybern., 23(4):187-202, 30 Aug. 1976; S.Haykin. Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation. Prentice Hall,Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2nd edition, 1999; R. Hecht-Nielsen,Neurocomputing, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1989; R. Hecht-Nielsen,A Theory Of Thalamocortex, in R. Hecht-Nielsen and T. McKenna, editors,Computational Models for Neuroscience: Human Cortical Information; S. Y.Kung, M. W. and S. H. Lin., Biometric Authentication: A Machine LearningApproach. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2005; B. Widrowand M. Kamenetsky, On The Efficiency Of Adaptive Algorithms, In S.Haykin and B. Widrow, editors, Least-Mean-Square Adaptive Filters, JohnWiley & Sons, New York, 2003; B. Widrow and M. Kamenetsky, StatisticalEfficiency Of Adaptive Algorithms, Neural Netw., 16(5-6):735-744,JuneJuly 2003; B. Widrow and M. A. Lehr, 30 Years Of Adaptive NeuralNetworks: Perception, Madaline, and backpropagation, Proc. IEEE,78(9):1415-1442, September 1990; U.S. Pat. No. 7,840,569, entitled“Enterprise relevancy ranking using a neural network,” which isincorporated herein by reference; U.S. Pat. No. 7,895,140, entitled“Neural Network Learning Device, Method, And Program,” which isincorporated herein by reference; and U.S. Pat. No. 7,979,370, entitled“Neural Network For Electronic Search Applications,” which isincorporated herein by reference.

Node/Venue Types

The nodes in the neural network in one implementation are venues such asrestaurants, theaters, night clubs, hotels, concerts and other events.However, due to the flexibility of the systems and methodologiesdescribed herein they may be applied in a variety of other manners.Nodes in the network may be sub-venue items such as specific menu itemsor specific rooms inside a hotel. The nodes may also be styleconsumables such as clothing, furniture or wine or rather content suchas music, books, magazines, TV shows, or movies. The nodes areoptionally set to be services such as mechanics, barbers,transportation, doctors, dentists, landscape architects, interiordesigners, or nanny services. In other implementations the nodes mayneighborhoods or cities in which to live, colleges to apply to, careersthat are a good fit, or grocery stores. In still other applications thenodes may be associated with social aspects such as friends andactivities the user might like. The nodes in other embodiments aremedical conditions or treatments.

The techniques described herein may also be used for fraud detection byproviding predictions of what a user is unlikely to do, which in turn ismore likely to be associated with fraudulent use of a credit card (forinstance). The techniques may also be used for marketing/co-brandingopportunities by predicting brand affinity even across disparatecategories. The techniques may also be applied to actuarial/riskassessment applications by analyzing co-occurrences between a user'sfine-scale likes and dislikes, which can be utilized as indicators ofrisk. The techniques may also be used to predict financial marketbehavior or trends by aggregating markets into “group users” andpredicting behavior of that group user as described hereinbelow. In asimilar vein predictions on mass human behavior can be achieved withrespect to geographic movement (migratory patterns) and thereby censusand demographic projections over time may be generated for use byretailers, real estate developers, and others. Moreover, the techniquesmay be used to gauge affinity for certain types of media (such atelevision shows) or media channels (cable or web).

As will be appreciated from the following description, in each suchimplementation the nodal attributes, reviewer attributes and theinterrelationships will be selected to correspond in part to the factorswhich are causally associated with reviewer's preferences for certainnodes. For instance, in a system designed to provide career suggestionsthe nodal attributes may includes skills associated with each professionand user attributes may include aptitude scores or survey questionnaireresults.

Hereinbelow the system 100 is described in connection with exemplarysystems in which the nodes are venues such as restaurants, hotels ortheaters. For convenience the term “venue” is used to refer to neuralnetwork nodes. It should be understood that the term “venue” in thefollowing sections is used broadly to refer to any entity or item thatis interrelated in the network with other network nodes such as usersand/or reviewers.

Identification of Venue Reviews

A user's or reviewer's affinity (again, positive or negative) for avenue is derived from both evaluations and assessments of venues, suchas reviews or ratings, and implicit data sources such as ant trails.Individuals may publish ratings on social webpages, review forums andwebsites or blogs. Ratings may also be published by votes placed via“Like” or “Digg” buttons disposed on various websites. As one example,user reviews of restaurants can be found at menuism.com, dine.com,opentable.com, google.com, reviewsahoy.com, and realeats.com. Anindividual's affinity for certain venues can also be discerned fromtheir spending habits or purchase history, data of which can be gleanedfrom financial transaction records such as credit card statements. Anindividual's web browsing history or ant trail can also provide insightinto affinity for certain venues, as discerned from cookies or thevarious reviews an individual generates across multiple forums,including but not limited to websites associated with each venue. Anindividual's website navigation bookmarks and browsing history alsoreflect browsing behavior and may likewise be mined for source data. Thegeographic position of an individual over time, such as derived fromcellular GPS data, can likewise be correlated with venues and therebygenerate data reflective of venue affinity. This approach may providedwell time data as well, which can be used to sort or arrange the data.Magazine subscriptions information may also be used as indicators of anindividual's affinity for given venues (as that term is broadly usedherein). An individual's professional licenses can also be used as datasources for affinity for venues, including but not limited toorganizations.

The foregoing sources of data concerning venue affinity can beprioritized based on factors germane to the strength of the correlationbetween the data and the affinity of interest. Data or sites that referto a greater number of venues might be more probative since such sitesare more likely to compare, contrast or rank venues. Similarly, sitesthat specify a greater number of properties, such as in structuredfields, for each venue or reviewer tend to be more effective orprobative. Sites with a greater number of reviews per venue and/orreviews per reviewer are, on balance, to include more reliable affinity.The inclusion of “related items,” “also viewed,” or “people whopurchased this also purchased” fields or boxes can also be considered asindicators that the site's data will be strongly correlated to actualaffinities. In a similar vein, a site's inclusion of geographicallyproximate recommendations, recommendations based on social networking,and recommendations based of complementary venues (e.g. hotel andrestaurant) may be indicative of more reliable data. The behavior of themore effective or accurate reviewers also can be analyzed todifferentiate various data sources, for example, by determining wherethose reviewers tend to post reviews. The existence of groupingstructures, such as data structures associated with a plurality ofsocially networked individuals, can also be used as a metric to grade orrate the potential value of the site's data. Blogs may also be crawledto determine which reviews or ratings sites are the most commonlyreferenced.

In one embodiment, numeric values are associated with some or all of theforegoing variables and weights are assigned to each variable based onthe system designer's estimation of the relative strength of correlationbetween the variable and the predictive value of the review data on thesite. For instance, the density of the best reviewers on a site may beweighted more heavily than the number of venues referenced on a site.The resulted weighted numerical grades can be used to prioritizeharvesting operations.

Harvesting Venue Reviews and Reviewer Data

The reviews may be harvested using web crawling techniques such as thosedescribed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,631,369, entitled “Method and System forIncremental Web Crawling” and assigned to IBM Corporation, which isincorporated herein by reference. According to that technique, in aninitial crawl, the crawler creates a first full index for the documentstore after which incremental crawls are executed.

Alternatively or in addition, the system 100 may target cached web pagesserved by commercial search engines. A suitable protocol for rebuildingcontent sites from search engine caches is as follows. First, a completevenue listing for a category by crawling a directory such as a YellowPages or other suitable directory. For each item in the directory, thesystem 100 runs a series of search queries in various search engines,each query restricted to results for the content site of interest, suchas dine.com. The search results are parsed and the URLs for the relevantcached pages are retrieved. The cached pages are then retrieved and in arepository, after which they are parsed based on the name, city, phonenumber, and other data fields associated with a venue of interest. Inthis manner the cached review page for the venue of interest may beidentified. This process is optionally repeated across search enginesand across multiple venues, targeting the sites prioritized as set forthin the preceding section, to collect the desired array of source data.

The data may optionally be validated by checking parsed venue orreviewer content for blank fields. Venue or reviewer content may also bechecked against unique identification information (a venue phone numberor a reviewer email address or screen name) to ensure sure that itcorresponds to the target venue or reviewer.

After validation, the pages may be parsed to extract the data ofinterest. Parser code may be used to segregate out the structured fieldsof interest, the reviews, and other information of interest as describedabove. The extracted data may be upload the data in database tables orfiles to be analyzed for computing personalization. Techniques such asthose taught in U.S. Pat. No. 7,788,293, entitled “Generating StructuredInformation” assigned to Google Inc., the contents of which are hereinincorporated by reference, may be used for this purpose.

The same approaches can be used to harvest data concerning reviewers orusers (discussed in more detail below). The data is preferentially in astructured format on a public site and is predictive of personality andaffinities. The data sources may be prioritized or ranked as set forthin the preceding section, such as according to the number of reviewsgiven by the reviewer, the citation of a reviewer's reviews on othersites and the alignment of a reviewer's reviews with overall ratingsgenerated by the system 100 (as discussed below) and third party reviewsites from which data is harvested. The reviewer data is thenselectively crawled and parsed as explained above.

The crawl and parser module 114 may be configured to coordinate thecrawling and digestion of certain web or network nodes. Due to practicallimitations the entire World Wide Web cannot be crawled and parsedsimultaneously. The crawling and parsing process may be coordinatedacross different content-gathering computers or agents. Multiple remotecrawling engines (at remote network nodes) may be deployed, each ofwhich can check data sources (such as web pages or cached web pages) forthe properties described above and recruit crawling and parsing nodes inthe event rich data sources are located. The remote crawling nodes cancoordinate their crawling based on real-time breaking news events, oroptimize content gathering in response to shifts in mass user behavioras reflected in the data matrices described herein.

Examples of content collection and content organization systems andprocess flows are shown in FIGS. 1B and 1C. FIG. 1B illustrates theprocess executed by the content collection system, which may include thecrawl and parsing module 114. At box 150 the crawl and parsing module114 identifies subject matter targets, such as rock-climbing, are neededin the neural network. The targets may also take the form of specificURLs or collections thereof. At box 152 the module 114 identifies thecurrent content, in the form of previously collected web pages (orrepresentations thereof), that already resides within the system'sstorage network. At step 154 the content collector, which in oneembodiment takes the form of a persistent system network node,determines from a comparison and analysis of the two inputs whichsubject matter or URLs are to be gathered by the module 114. The contentcollector verifies the addresses and content of the target sitescontaining the subject matter which is to be collected and creates aqueue of items to be crawled and parsed by the module 114. As anexample, the distributed queue's first entry might be [Boston,restaurants, google.com, ‘all’] which corresponds to a request that thecrawler nodes collect all cached pages associated with google.com'sreviews of any Boston area restaurant. The content collector may alsodynamically allocate certain queue items to specific crawling nodesbased on their relative priority (160). At step 162 the contentcollection engine, which includes a distributed array of crawler nodes,receives or access the distributed queue and dynamically assignedcollection commands from the content collector. The content collectionengine, under the control of crawl and parsing module 114, collectscached web pages as discussed above. The output is a library of cachedweb content which is parsed according to the methods described herein.

FIG. 1C shows an exemplary process executed by the content organizer,which may comprise the matrix builder 116. At step 174 the contentorganizer receives or accesses the library of cached pages to be parsedand added to the network. The content organizer may be a persistentsystem network node in various embodiments. The content organizationengine (see step 182) may include a distributed array of parsing nodesthat access a distributed queue of parsing assignments and receiveassignments which are dynamically assigned, optionally to specificcrawling nodes or crawling nodes having certain attributes such asbandwidth or throughput. The content organization engine also accessesan array of site-specific parsers which are specially designed to parsedata as it is presented on certain sites. For instance, becauseGoogle.com may present its hotel data in a format different thanrestaurants, a parser engine specific to Google's hotel pages ispresented to the content organization engine for use in parsingcorresponding cached web pages. Other examples, as shown in FIG. 1Cinclude a parser specific to Facebook.com's venue or event pages. Thisarchitecture may facilitate modification of parser engines as sitesalter the manner in which they present data. For example,Local.yahoo.com may alter the data format of its hotel pages, inresponse to which a single parser engine can be updated. The output ofthe content organization engine (182) is used by the matrix builder 114to create additional nodes and matrices of interrelationships asdescribed herein. The resulting matrices and databases of web contentare presented for simultaneous access by multiple instances of webservers which present the user interface described below or whichcommunicate with mobile device client applications as discussed herein.

Collection of User Data

Upon creation of an account or in response to another triggering eventsuch as a request for a new recommendation the system 100 may require auser to input various data including gender, age, marital status,children ages, children gender, third parties with whom the user issocially networked, hobbies, interests, favorite venue information (inone or more venue categories), preferred or non-preferred reviewingentities (if any).

The user is then asked to list favorite or preferred venues. As anexample, the user may list favorite restaurants. The system 100 asks foralternative favorites in the event the restaurant is not included withinthe neural network.

The system 100 optionally may crawl the web for additional informationconcerning the user and then parse and validate the data according tothe methods described above. This supplemental data may be added to theuser's profile, data from which will be used in various operations asset forth below.

Creating Nodal Interrelationships

Nodes in the data network represent venues, venue properties, users,user properties, reviewers, reviewer properties, and the like. Links orlinks represent relations between those nodes. The number of linksbetween two items might therefore grow as data on two items grows. Thestrength of each link denotes the affinity between the two connecteditems, such as similarity of star rating (in a review of a venue),number of attributes held in common. Links can be either positive ornegative in sign.

Links can be associated to designate affinity between and amongst,venues, properties of venues, users, reviewers, content sources, or anycombination thereof. For instance, as shown in FIG. 2, two venues 200,210 may be interrelated in that they have several attributes 201, 211 incommon, namely that they are both Italian restaurants in the sameneighborhood. Reviewers 220, 230 are related in that they likewise havemultiple attributed in common. Users 240, 250 are likewise interrelatedby shared attributes. Reviewer 220 is interrelated with both venues 200and 210 in that Reviewer delivered a review to both venues and that inturn creates an additional relationship between venues 200 and 210(namely, they were reviewed by the same reviewer. User 250 is related toboth Reviewers 220 and 230 via shared attributes and User 240 is relatedonly to Reviewer 220 via the shared attributes. Reviewers 220 and 230are thus interrelated also in that they share attributes of user 240.User 240 is also directly linked to venue 200 by virtue of the fact thatthe user has expressed an affinity for that specific venue. Reviewers220 and 230 thus have a second order relationship with venue 200 throughuser 240.

This data architecture permits links, or interrelationships, to beadjusted independently from one another. Links touching the same nodecan be adjusted for one partner node but not others. Links on the samenode can be “scaled” together to maintain relative values of each oftheir partners while changing the overall drive/influence to that node.

In selected embodiments, subtractive or “anti-related” links can weakenrelationships from one node onto another. Subtractive nodes also can beadded to the network to normalize the total positive timbre of localnodes where the average link values are too strongly positive.Subtractive nodes also can serve to mediate competition between nodes toinfluence one another, as the strength of the link dictates the effectone node will have on the other. Subtractive nodes can help sharpen, orfocus, the positive influence cast by a given node.

Links can in various implementations be sorted according to priority ofinfluence over (or strength of link to) their downstream node. Links mayinteract and influence one another, where the addition of one changesthe strength or presence of another, in a manner that is restricted ortargeted to other links on the same node.

Links from reviewer nodes can be normalized based on how positive ornegative they are. In other words, if a given reviewer is an “easygrader” his or her reviews may be lessened in magnitude to normalize thereviews to a statistic goal or mean. Links from reviewer nodes may alsobe normalized to lessen the influence of those links where, forinstance, a reviewer has an extraordinarily high number of reviews (eachof which creates a link) and thus that single reviewer's opinion wouldunduly influence the data network if not scaled appropriately.Conversely, the strength of a reviewer link make by scaled upwards basedon measured or perceived effectiveness or accuracy of the reviewer. Thismay be executed, for instance, through rankings or ratings of reviewersor statistical feedback whereby accuracy or predictiveness of reviewersis measured.

Weighting or normalization may also be used to alter a link's strengthbased on the number of attributes in held in common. For instance, thesystem 100 may be configured to give each additional link of a giventype a linearly or exponentially decreasing affect, such as where asubstantial number of interrelated reviewers given a venue a similarreview. Links between nodes which are hyper-connected may be likewise bescaled downward to reduce the effect that one of the two nodes has onthe extended network. The converse—giving cumulative links escalatingeffect or increasing link strength for under-connected nodes—may also beimplemented with the opposite effects.

Links may also be weighted based on the predictiveness of the reviewer.For instance, reviewers may be graded based on number of reviews, numberof citations on other web sites, or ratings of reviewers on third partysites crawled by the system. The links created based on each reviewer'sreviews may accordingly be scaled linearly or non-linearly according tothe relative grade of the reviewer. Reviews provided by more highlyrated reviewers may be assigned correspondingly higher values orstrengths.

Reviewers may be weighted on a user-specific basis as well. For example,the neural network of links may be reweighted based on the fact that theuser requesting a recommendation has affinities or attributes held incommon with certain reviewers. Reviewers' ratings may be correspondingweighted more heavily or more lightly in correspondence to the linkbetween the user and the various reviewers

Reviewers may optionally be pruned from the network if they have below athreshold level of relevance as measured by a corresponding grade oreffectiveness. As noted elsewhere herein, the grades of reviewers may bebased on ratings of reviewers at third party sites and/or feedback ofusers of the system 100 concerning agreement or disagreement withrecommendations which were calculated in part based on a givenreviewer's review. If a reviewer is pruned from the system the remainingreviewer's weightings may be adjusted upwards to maintain normalization.

The links in the neural network may be bidirectional (as shown in thefigures) or unidirectional. In certain circumstances, the predictivenessof a link may be asymmetrical or unidirectional. For example, it may bethe case that almost everyone who likes restaurant A likes restaurant B,but very few who like restaurant B also like restaurant A. In that casethe links associated with affinity for restaurant A may unidirectionallypoint to (be linked to) restaurant B but the converse would not betrue—node B would not have a positive link to restaurant A based on thisdata point. For simplicity of illustration the figures address thesimpler scenario wherein all data points are symmetrical but in variousimplementations some or all of the links are unidirectional or haveasymmetric strengths (such as +1.5 in one direction and +0.5 or −0.5 inthe other direction).

The data network may be refined based on an active feedback loop fromconcerning the effectiveness of the recommendations provided by thesystem 100. Links can be refined (in either direction) based on feedbackfor how effective the recommendation was. One measure of theeffectiveness of the recommendation is whether funds were spent by theuser based on the recommendation, which in turn might be measured viadata provided by partners such as financial transaction card issuers.Another measure may be feedback provided by the user in response to aquery or survey concerning the recommendation or venue in question. Yetanother measure of recommendation effectiveness is a user's browsingbehavior and the fact that the user left a positive review for therecommended venue on a third party site (which review is collected andparsed as set forth above). Still another technique to assesseffectiveness of a recommendation is geographic dwell time at a physicallocation associated with a venue as measured by mobile device GPS data,for instance.

It should be noted that not only first order connections are updatedbased on feedback. Rather, in various implementations second and higherorder connections are optionally updated based on feedback. Forinstance, when a reviewer's ranking or grade is updated the second orderconnection between two restaurants which are both liked by the revieweris updated or correspondingly modified as well.

Mismatch between the recommendation and the user's evaluation can drivea reduction or weakening of the links between the associated nodes andthe converse could also be executed. In response to positive feedbackbetween a reviewer node's recommendation the links between that node andneighboring nodes may be strengthened. Similarly, links created by thereviewer's reviews may be assigned a greater strength.

The nodal structure facilitates computations and scaling of the network.As will be seen, the nodal network creates a natural look-up table thatis convenient to search and operate over. The nodal structure withinter-node links of varying types provides a convenient way to updatethe structure as new pieces of information are added, and in certainembodiments this is executed without losing the original information asin traditional databases that represent affinity as single numberweights between items. The data in various embodiments is represented aseither an indexed rows of databases, linked lists, or distributed files.

The matrix of interrelationships or links can be broadly categorized ascontent-based interrelationships, collaborative interrelationships andcontent-collaborative interrelationships. The first type, content-basedlinks, are in certain embodiments premised on venue attributes formultiple venues reviewed by same reviewer. The content-based linksestablish interrelationships between venues based on shared attributes.The strength of the link (or anti-link) is dependent on the number ofthings held in common, comparative ratings and other factors asdescribed herein.

Collaborative venue interrelationships associate venues that are likedby same reviewer, often without any dependency or relation to thereason(s) why the reviewer likes the venue. The strength of the link (oranti-link) is dependent on reviewer rating, proximity on same list, andother factors described herein. Collaborative links arise when twovenues co-occur, for example, in the same person's list of favorite orpreferred venues, on the same “top 10” or other grouping lists onranking or recommendation sites, or on the same search engine searchresults. Proximity within the list may be used as a variable to controllink strength. Ant trails may also be used to create collaborative linksby tracking people's surfing behavior and linking venues a given useroften visits, independent of spiderwebbing. In this way, restaurant Amay be deemed interrelated to museum B if many tracked users visit bothof those sites. The user's dwell time at each site or the fact that auser left a rating or review may also factor into whether a link iscreated. In certain embodiments, this tracking is accomplished withoutthe use of cookies, rather by collecting from the web data concerningthe user's activities on rating and review sites according to thetechniques described elsewhere herein.

Content-collaborative interrelationships or links arise from common (oranti-common) reviewer attributes for reviewers who liked (or disliked)the same venue. The venue attributes may be analyzed for common oranti-common features and links may be established between either aspecific venue and reviewer attributes or between venue attributes andreviewer attributes. The strength of link may depend on the incidence ofan attribute among reviewers giving venue a certain grade or similarcomparative ratings.

The exemplary architecture illustrated in FIGS. 3-12 facilitates incertain embodiments dynamic updating and adapting of the network. Forexample, when a new restaurant or review is added to the network, thosenodes each create first, second and higher order links which are addedto the network. The affected links can be updated by a relativelycomputationally simple (and non-resource intensive) addition or otherarithmetic operation and the neural network need not be substantiallyentirely recalculated or reformed.

Generating Recommendations

Either the system or users may trigger the recommendation engine. Theusers may do so by entering through a web portal, client application orelectronic message a request that a recommendation be generated based onprovided venue attributes such as type, geography or price. The system100 may access a user profile to collect data from the user profile suchas other venues liked, gender, profession, or age. The system 100 mayalso automatically generate recommendations for inclusion in electronicmessages, such as text messages or email messages, sent to targetedusers or for presentation on a web portal or client application accessedby users.

The recommendation engine responsively identifies the venues withstrongest links according to the following protocols in selectedembodiments. Based on the identified “liked venue(s)” the system 100identifies the top N venues that have strongest link value to that theidentified venue and which have the specified venue attributes.Alternatively or in addition, based on highest rated venue(s) havingspecified attributes the system 100 identifies the top N venues thathave strongest link value to that the identified venue. Still anotheralternative which can be used alone or in combination with the foregoingis to, based on the highest rates venue(s) having specified attributesand being recommended by friends or selected reviewers, identify the topN venues that have strongest link value to that the identified venue.The recommendation engine may also generate recommendations based on theuser's attributes, for instance by identifying the top N venues thathave strongest link to user attributes.

In certain embodiments, a plurality of these techniques are used andresulting venue recommendations are weighted based on empiricalobservations concerning the predictiveness or accuracy of each protocol.The weight factors may be simple coefficients or first, second or higherorder equations.

In the case of recommendations provided for a group of users, these sametechniques may be used but with the modification that the userattributes are selected to match the group, either by direct user inputor by arithmetic blending or averaging the user attribute values toarrive at a composite group user profile.

Recommendations may also be provided based on real-time locationinformation, such as that provided by smart-phone GPS data. As describedmore fully below, the system 100 may send an electronic message or alerteither including a recommendation based in part on the location and/ortime or prompting the user to access an interface to receive therecommendation. For instance, if a user is known to be proximate to atheater shortly before a show which the recommendation engine rankshighly for that particular user the system 100 may generate anelectronic alert to the user including the recommendation, a hyperlinkto the system 100 web portal, or a link to active a clientrecommendation application which can launch the interface describedherein.

Alerts or recommendations may be accompanied by, and be generated basedon, promotional offers related to the venues. For instance, anelectronic notification may contain a recommendation along with apromotional discount offer for the related potential booking orreservation. Recommendations presented in the interface (or viaelectronic messages) may also be selected based in part on promotionalstatus. That is to say, the recommendation engine may strengthen linksnodes associated with promotional offers and thus the engine will factorin promotional offers when determining nodes to recommend (i.e. thosemost strongly linked to nodes associated with the user or arecommendation request).

Users' feedback concerning recommended venues and the associated “takerates” may likewise be factored in by the recommendation engine. Forexample, the link strengths may be increased for venues for which usersmore frequently make reservations based on the recommendations,consistent with the techniques taught herein.

EXAMPLE

FIGS. 3-12 illustrate one simplified implementation of therecommendation engine described herein. Those skilled in the art willunderstand that this example can be extended to incorporate any or allof the additional features described herein. Selected of thesesubstitutions and extensions will be mentioned below and thoseexplanations are not intended to be limiting.

FIG. 3 shows an exemplary matrix of reviewer ratings. Reviewer 1 hasprovided reviews for nine out of the twelve restaurants, the ratingsspanning from one star to five, five being the highest. Reviewers 2-7have likewise each provided ratings for a different subset of the twelverestaurants. In other embodiments the venues could be venues ofdifferent types, such as four restaurants, four night clubs and fourtheaters. The ratings may use a wider numerical or alphabetic scale,integer or non-integer.

FIG. 4 shows the corresponding matrix of attributes for the venues ofFIG. 3. In this example each restaurant is in Boston, Mass. and theprice varies on a ten point scale. Attire is assigned alphabetic codes(formal and casual), although numeric codes are used in certainembodiments. Zip codes are used as neighborhood values in this example.The hours of operations is assigned a code selected from a predeterminedlibrary of operational hours and in other embodiments the hours ofoperation is provided various fields, one for each day of the week.

FIG. 5 shows the reviewer attributes for Reviewers 1-7, as shown in FIG.3. In this example, reviewer attributes are limited to gender, age,profession, education, marital status, number of children, number ofreviews, and review accuracy. The codes may be selected frompredetermined libraries. The number of reviews is based on the datacollected as described above. The review accuracy may be calculatedbased on the feedback control data as discussed above. Alternatively, acomposite reviewer grade may be used which optionally factors in numberof reviews, citations of reviews on other sites, number sites hostingreviews and/or consistency of recommendation with positive userfeedback.

FIG. 6 is a chart showing an array of user attributes for seven users.The methodology is similar to that set forth above for reviewers butadditional or different data fields are used for the users. In thisembodiment, each user is asked for four favorite venues. In otherembodiments, a list of preferred venues in various different venuecategories is included in the user profile. This user data, as notedabove, may be input by each user and/or collected from web data sourcesin the manner set forth above.

FIG. 7 is an array of content-based venue links based on the venueattributes of FIG. 4. Restaurant 4 has one link with Restaurant 2associated with common attire. The value of the link, +0.25, is lessthan the other links such that it has a lesser impact on therecommendation, as will be seen. In other words, the link is relativelyweak. Restaurant 4 has three links with Restaurant 1, +1.25 associatedwith the common neighborhood, +1 based on the common genre and +0.25based on the same attire. The net value of the content-based linksbetween links Restaurant 4 and Restaurant 1 is +2.50. This matrix couldoptionally include links associated with a plurality of additional venueattributes and could also include anti-links, or negative links,associated with anti-common properties as will be illustrated inconnection with FIG. 8.

FIG. 8 is a matrix of collaborative venue links based on the reviews setforth in FIG. 3. Taking as an example the association between Restaurant7 and Restaurant 3, there is a +1 link associated with the fact thatReviewer 2 rated both of these restaurants as four star. Restaurants 6and 7 are given a stronger positive link based on common positivereviews because Reviewer 3 rated both restaurants as five star.Returning to the link between Restaurant 7 and 3, an anti-link of −0.75is assigned based on the opposite affinity for these restaurantsexpressed by Reviewer 1 (who gave the Restaurant 3 four stars andRestaurant 7 one star). A higher negative magnitude could be used wherea review rated restaurants in a more strongly opposite manner (i.e. onestar and five star) as shown in the link between Restaurant 11 andRestaurant 5. There a −1.00 anti-link is shown based on the onestar/five star ratings of Reviewer 5. As noted above, a greater array ofdifferent links could be assigned based on commonalities oranti-commonalities—these are merely representative.

A matrix of content-collaborative interrelationships (not shown) mayreflect links arising from common or anti-common features between eachvenue and each reviewer. For example, reviewers may have acharacteristic called “genre affinity” and when that matches the venuegenre a link of predetermined strength may be created. Additionally, thecontent-collaborative matrix may show links between affinity for a venueand reviewer attributes. In that example, common attributes amongreviewers who rated a venue highly are linked to the venue. Forinstance, reviewers aged 31-35 may disproportionately rate a venuepoorly, in which case an anti-link is created between the venue and thereviewer attribute “age 31-35.”

FIG. 9 shows illustrative outputs of the recommendation engine based ona query for a recommendation for an American restaurant and a useraffinity for Restaurant 7 (taken from the subject user's profile of FIG.6). In other embodiments more inputs may be used, such as venueattributes and other preferred venues. In this example therecommendation is a blending of the content-based link strength 901,collaborative link strength 903, and content-collaborative link strength905. Each link strength is assigned a distinct weighting factor 902,904, 906, although in other embodiments the blending equation is asecond order or higher order equation rather than a first order sum ofproducts. The values 910-914 derives from the fact that Restaurant 3 andRestaurant 7 have no link shown in FIG. 7. The same is true forRestaurant 6/7, while Restaurants 9/7 and 12/7 show a +0.25 link.Similarly, the matrix in FIG. 9 shows the cumulative link strengths915-918 for restaurant links 3/7, 6/7, 9/7 and 12/7, respectively. Thecontent-collaborative link strength are based on thecontent-collaborative link matrix (not shown). The weighting factors902, 904, 906 are constant but may be set to vary according to thepredictiveness or accuracy of each type of link (based on feedbackcontrol as discussed above). The resulting recommendation values 920-923reflect the overall link strength 907 between each restaurant andrestaurant 7 as shown above.

Second order relationships could also be included in the link matricesused to calculate overall link strength. For example, Restaurant 8 isliked by both Reviewer 4 and Reviewer 5. Those reviewers, in turn, bothlike Restaurant 5. Restaurant 5 could be assigned a direct +0.25 link toRestaurant 8 based on this second order relationship. That link couldoperate in the matrix independently of the nodes associated withReviewer 4 or Reviewer 5.

An alternative form of second order relationship is shown in FIG. 10.FIG. 10 illustrates second order links arising from collaborative venuelinks. As shown in FIG. 8, Restaurant 8 is positively linked to bothRestaurant 3 and Restaurant 5, so a +0.25 link is created directlybetween Restaurants 3 and 5. Restaurants 12 and 7 are both negativelylinked to Restaurant 8 so a +0.15 link is created to reflect the beliefthat this anti-link is weaker than the positive link previouslymentioned. In a similar vein, an even weaker second order link isestablished between Restaurants 11 and 12 because while both arenegatively linked to Restaurant 8 the links are substantially differentin magnitude.

These second order relationships can be added directly to the relatedmatrices or otherwise computationally combined when calculating overalllink strength between two nodes.

FIG. 11 shows an arbitrary set of link values in a more complex systemthat factors in a wider variety of links (such as second order links)across the same nodes. It can be seen that the values are stronglypositive and few values are negative. This can be observed where thedata has a skew associated with reviewer tendency to give generousratings, for instance. If the data of FIG. 11 is content based it mayhave a skew different than parallel matrices for collaborative links orcontent-collaborative links. Accordingly, it may be useful to normalizethe data of FIG. 11 to facilitate computational combination with linksin the other matrices.

FIG. 12 shows the data after an exemplary correction operation. In thisexample, a constant value of five was subtracted from all data points.In other embodiments, the value subtracted may be selected such that thedata set hits a common or desired mean or median. In other embodimentsnormalization is accomplished by multiplication or division. Forexample, a certain percentage may be subtracted like a tax from affectedlinks by multiplying the link strengths by (1-X), wherein X is a taxrate from 0 to 1. The tax rates in this approach may be progressive toaccommodate the tendency of users and reviewers to aggregate toward asmall number of more popular venues, which as discussed herein can causethose venues to cast too large a shadow or have an undue influence onthe remainder of the neural network.

It should be noted that normalization can occur at local level or at thenetwork level. At the local level, all links connected to a certainnodes may be normalized or all links coming to or going from a certainnode may be normalized (recalling that links may be unidirectional orasymmetric). Alternatively, normalization may occur at the data matrixlevel. For example, content-based link matrices may be normalized orother data subsets of network may be normalized.

FIG. 13 shows another form of higher order connection, connection creep.In this example the link between Restaurant 10 and Restaurant 1 in FIG.12 is considered too high in that it might have an undue influence onthe connected nodes. Accordingly, 1.5 of link strength is subtractedfrom link 10/1 and 0.5 is added to the less strongly positive links10/2, 10/7 and 10/8. No portion of link 10/1's strength is reassigned tolink 10/9 because it is already above a predetermined threshold abovewhich links are not to have connection creep bonuses added or abovewhich no higher order links should be added.

User Interface

FIG. 14 is an exemplary user interface for deployment at a web portal orclient device such as a desktop computer, smart phone, tablet PC,automotive multimedia interface or other mobile computing device. Theserver or local application provides an evolving personalized brand logoand personalized audio soundtrack to match the displayed itinerary. Thesound track may persist and “travel” with the user as he or shenavigates different functionalities or pages through the interface. Theinterface is also designed to provide bio-visual data feedback to theuser. The system permits users to state their goals and intentions basedon the feedback they have received from the system.

FIG. 14 is an overview page that provides users with an immediateperspective on options, a space forcollection/comparison/pre-screening/deliberation, and the ability toimmediately act. Specifically, the overview page has three distinctsections and functionalities.

First, at the recommendation panel 1410, a plurality of recommendationsare presented. In preferred embodiments, there are five recommendationsprovided as shown in FIG. 14. In other embodiments, two to seven, threeto six, four to six, four to eight, four to nine, or two to tenrecommendations are provided. The number of recommendations may be on aper-venue basis so that five recommendations are provided forrestaurants and a like number of hotels are recommended. Alternatively,a lesser number of complementary venue (e.g. hotel) recommendations areprovided.

Second, the collection and comparison panel 1420 provides a place tocompare and contrast recommendations of interest. The panel providesvenue genre or type, the venue name, geographic area, and price. Thepanel also provides buttons to book a reservation or checkavailabilities or rates for the various venues. Buttons for adding theevent to the Ava calendar (discussed below) are optionally providedadjacent each venue. Also provided are status identifiers indicating thecurrent state of activities and/or bookings for each venue. Optionally,buttons may be provided to launch a window or image that depicts thevenue on a map.

Third, the calendar panel (not shown) will feed or import a view of theuser's personal Ava calendar and provide interactivity for immediateassessment of the user's schedule and available times. The calendarpermits import of the user's other appointments and export of the Avacalendar items to any third party calendar systems such as Outlook,Google, and iCal.

These three panels are arranged down the page so that decision-makingflows down the page from menu of options (top), to deliberation andcomparison (middle), to arriving at a decision, and finally toscheduling/booking/publishing/sharing/taking action (bottom). Thisarrangement may in certain embodiments facilitate decision-making.

A user can directly book a recommendation at any of these three stages,or add to calendar at either of the first two stages. This arrangementmay in certain embodiments enhance the likelihood that a user makesreservation or booking based on the recommendations.

Additional optional functionalities (not shown) include a transportationreservation interface. For example, the interface may present atransportation button that launches an booking or reservation portalwhich communicates with a third party transportation provider, such as ataxi service, and makes a reservation corresponding to a restaurant orother reservation. The interface may also permit the arrangement oftransportation services between and amongst a plurality of otherrecommended events spanning one or more days.

In similar vein, booking functionality may be provided for a variety ofcomplementary venues, services or activities. Examples include hotelrooms, airline reservations, movie tickets, theatre tickets, museumtickets, music tickets, sporting events, product delivery (such asflowers or flowers), real estate services, or moving services (such asinter-city packing and transportation services).

The interface may selectively suggest alternative actions or venuesbased on a first booked venue or action. For instance, the booking of arestaurant reservation may prompt the generation of night club ortheater recommendations. As another example, the booking of a realestate tour through a real estate agency may prompt a recommendation formoving services. Subsequent bookings may in turn generate additionalrecommendations complementary to the most recent booking, the earlierbooking, or both.

These follow-on recommendations may be filtered and selected accordingto the techniques set forth above. In particular, the recommendationsmay be function of the user's profile, attributes, venue preferences,past booking behavior and/or previous feedback concerning certainvenues. For instance, the recommendations may be filtered as set forthabove according to the user's most recent reservations and the user'sexpressed preferences for given venues that are linked to potentialsecondary or tertiary recommendations.

Recommendations may also be provided based on real-time locationinformation, such as that provided by smart-phone GPS data. The system100 may send an electronic message or alert either including arecommendation based in part on the location and/or time or promptingthe user to access an interface to receive the recommendation. Forinstance, if a user is known to be proximate to a theater shortly beforea show which the recommendation engine ranks highly for that particularuser the system 100 may generate an electronic alert to the userincluding the recommendation, a hyperlink to the system web portal, or alink to active a client recommendation application which can launch theinterface described herein.

Alerts or recommendations may be accompanied by, and be generated basedon, promotional offers related to the venues. For instance, anelectronic notification may contain a recommendation along with apromotional discount offer for the related potential booking orreservation. Recommendations presented in the interface (or viaelectronic messages) may also be selected based in part on promotionalstatus. That is to say, the recommendation engine may strengthen linksnodes associated with promotional offers and thus the engine will factorin promotional offers when determining nodes to recommend (i.e. thosemost strongly linked to nodes associated with the user or arecommendation request).

Users' feedback concerning recommended venues and the associated “takerates” may likewise be factored in by the recommendation engine. Forexample, the link strengths may be increased for venues for which usersmore frequently make reservations based on the recommendations,consistent with the techniques taught herein.

Users may be provided a profile page or “my account” page that providesanalytics on that data and any other data collected or contributed toprovide perspective and insight into behavior. The page provides afeedback mechanisms to the user that is “habit honing” in that analyticson self activity is provided in a visual format. For example, the pagemay present graphical trends of actions within customizable goalcategories such as health (gym, yoga), family (museums, travel, dining),and errands (dentist, mechanic, groceries). Based on user defined goals,the overview page suggestions can be featured to highlight relevantactivities to fill existing calendar time-slots.

The interface may also provide other prompts to facilitate action andhone habits. For example, the interface may provide cues and triggersembedded in mobile device applications to cue initiation of plans andtransitions between scheduled events. For instance, the mobile clientapplication may trigger chimes upon next scheduled event, music toreduce anxiety surrounding errands, tailored music transitions upon theoccurrence of the next scheduled event, or visual (blinking LED) cuesupon next scheduled events.

The interfaces described herein may be presented, as noted, through avariety of devices. Still additional devices are contemplated, includingtelevision screens, third party websites (through partnerships),in-store kiosks, or personal keychains or dongles.

Merchant Interface

The venues are operated by third parties which may comprise merchantssuch as restaurant owners, airlines, or hotel operators. The system 100may be configured to provide merchants a visualization of users'behavior. For instance, merchants may be provided access to ant traildata patterns, including in real time. Merchants can “interact” withthese patterns and request the system 100 to inject disruptive contentsuch as promotional offers related to a user's present location andexpressed preferences.

Merchants may also be provided anonymized profiles of the likes anddislikes of their customers (i.e. users who patronize theirestablishment). This can include reviews provided by reviewers and userswho provide feedback (who also constitute reviewers).

Illustrative Implementation

One illustrative system implementation consistent with the foregoingteachings is discussed below. The discussion is generally organized intofour sections: content collection, content organization, personalizationand user interface.

The purpose of the Content Collection system is to perform 3 steps: 1)identify “objects” (venues, events, and other instances of interest tothe user), 2) find/match electronic pages with deep information on thoseobjects (object characteristics, reviews, associations with otherobjects), and 3) retrieve pages into the storage system.

The objects to be retrieval in this example constitute any set of webpages based on objects of interest. The objects may be selected based oncategory, filters for a particular category and the content sources thatare targeted.

This type of retrieval can in turn be broken up into several ContentModes. Content Mode 1 is called “Global Grab.” In this mode, the systemseeks to identify and retrieve information on every object in a category(e.g., “all restaurants in San Diego”). In Content Mode 2, KeepingCurrent, the system seeks to focus the collection on either i)refreshing stale information on old objects, or ii) identifying newobjects that just arose for old categories. In Content Mode 3, known asIntelligent Browsing, the system seeks to have the data search updateitself dynamically based on its real-time discoveries, to “zoom in” andfocus on specific trends and objects.

One type of Global Grab is spidering. This is a conventional method usedby Internet search engines according to which the system downloads thepage of a content provider's site, scans that page for links to otherpages on the site, and then downloads those pages. By repeating thisprocess an entire site can be covered. The system can also implementpaginated searches in which the system actively seeks, for example, page1 of a term like “Restaurants,” then page 2, and so on.

A second type of Global Grab is crawling. Sometimes it is desirable notto have to get pages directly from a content site, such as where thesite blocks automated indexing. In this case one can replicate thestructure of a site from the cache of a search engine, which crawl andcache every page as a “second copy” of the internet. Here, the systemuses a search engine to search for the URL of interest. Usually, the URLwill be included in the first result, along with a “Cached Page” link tothe cached copy of the page. The system can then download the linklisted in the “Cached Page,” which is the same as the original page. Thesystem can then scan that page for links to other pages on the site, andrepeat the process for those pages.

A third type of Global Grab involves getting a list of all objects andthen finding them within a site. This is a method designed to be moreholistic than spidering, to ensure that every single object of acategory is retrieved from a given site if available. First, a completelist of target objects is created, such as by crawling an Internetdirectory like Yellowpages.com for “restaurants in San Diego.” Then thesystem will have the complete list of objects for which data is desired.The next step is to search for each of these objects in turn in a searchengine, restricting the search to the pages from the target website.Different combinations of data extracted from the Internet directory canbe used to seed the search query, and usually the business name, metroname, and phone number are useful ways to lock onto the object on thetarget site.

The search engine will retrieve pages that match these search queryparameters on the target site of interest. Usually one of the first fewpages in the results is the correct match. By repeating this searchengine and retrieval process for every object in the Internet directory,the system is likely build a complete replica of the target site's dataon that category.

A fourth type of Global Grab involves third-party crawlers. It iscontemplated that third party services will crawl the web and make theresults of those crawls available for purchase. In this case, the firststep of the global grab methodology is simplified because the system canquery the service for every page arising from a certain set of websites.If such third party services also make the pages available for retrievalthen the speed of the crawl is increased.

Turning to Content Mode 2, Keeping Current, it is assumed that thesystem has completed a global grab and has data on all objects for agiven category. The task then becomes staying current, or up to date,with the objects as their data changes. New objects can be introduced,such as when restaurants open. Old objects can become outdated, such aswhen restaurants close. Data on objects can change, such as if the hoursof operation or menu items change. New and old objects can be identifiedby doing a crawl on global directories (which is fast) and then focusingin on any changes to the list of objects. Alternatively, the system candiscard old data and then run a new global grab. Finally, the system canrely on “update notifications” which can be acquired in several forms:i) some websites focus on these changes, such as “listings of newrestaurants” in local papers, ii) many content provider APIs will notifyof openings and closings of sites, iii) URLs and webpage titles willoften receive a “CLOSED” stamp which can be rapidly screened. Each datumcollected by the system is tagged with an expiration date, based on thetype of the data (events expire immediately, restaurants may need to berefreshed every few months to check for major changes). Data that hasexpired can have associated pages re-retrieved for freshness. There-retrieval process is simplified because the URL is already known.

Content Mode 3, Intelligent Coordinated Retrieval, involves “eatingnodes,” or retrieval computers, that can coordinate their searches basedon real-time events to optimize content gathering in response to massuser behavior. In this implementation the retrieval computers are given“write” access to the retrieval queue. If the retrieval computersidentify a trend that is similar to their original target, but stronger,the retrieval computers can recruit other computers to look more deeplyat this phenomenon by writing the new target (or a set of targets withina target area) onto the retrieval queue. Retrieval computers can alsointeract intelligently in the collection process by alerting each othersif a lead turns out to be faulty, and is indicative of more faulty leads(for example, if a region of a site is covered with spam or stale data).In this case, the retrieval computer(s) can scan the queue and deletesimilar jobs on the queue so that future computers don't devoteresources to exploration of a lower value target area. In this way,different search nodes again inform one another about what they learn byvirtue of the shared queue to help guide their collective search.

Turning next to matching objects to content pages, whenever the systemis gathering data from target websites on an object of interest, thesystem should ensure that the data on the target site is actuallyreferring to the object of interest. This is especially true whenattempting to cross-reference objects across different sites. The systemoptionally utilizes a “likelihood of match” score to make thisdetermination, taking into account multiple variables. For example, ifthe system is trying to match a venue on two different sites, the factthat they have the same phone number or address may tend to indicatethat they are the same venue. Numeric identifiers on consistent scalesare particularly valuable for this purpose, such as phone numbers, UPCsymbols, and latitude/longitude. Non-numeric identifiers (strings) suchas addresses can also be used, and one can check the similarity of thetwo sites' addresses by taking a Hamming distance on the characters, orparsing out each one's street number, street name, etc.

Data is cross-referenced across multiple sites by using data from onesite to choose objects to find on another site, then use the stepsdiscussed above to find new content pages from those objects on adifferent site.

A fleet of retrieval computers may be created by building each fromscratch programmatically. Each computer is resurrected from a diskimage, such as an Amazon Machine Image (AMI). The AMI is loaded as anelastic computing node on Amazon's EC2 (elastic cloud computing) orother service using standard libraries written in Java. The AMI is armedwith everything that the computer will need, including a Java runtimeenvironment, the capacity to communicate with a central version controlrepository such as Git, etc. The AMI is also armed with a startup scriptthat runs when the EC2 node is born, and receives user parameters passedto the EC2 node at birth. The user parameters to the startup script tellit where to download the latest code instructions for the node, such asthe URL of an S3 location, or the URL of a Git repository. The startupscript is armed with the credentials to access the latest codeinstructions, and load the code onto the new EC2 node. Every EC2 node inthe fleet downloads similar instructions, so they are all prepped arounda common task. These instructions tell it how to connect to the messagequeue with the URLs to retrieve, and also how to go about the retrievalprocess. Each one then launches the downloaded code (runs the JAR file,etc) and thus begins working. Finally, each computer in the fleet isassigned its own IP address (via Amazon's Elastic IP system, etc) sothat they can be throttled by content sites independently from the othernodes and work in parallel.

Tasks are distributed amongst the fleet of retrieval computers by usinga list of URLs (usually long, millions) of pages that the system wantsto retrieve. This list might be a text file, database table, or othersimple serial storage system. The goal is to distribute those URLs amongthe many computers. This process is best implemented through a queueservice that lives independently from all the retrieval computers. As anexample, Amazon offers the Simple Queuing Service (SOS) in which everyURL is stored as a string message on the queue. Thus, the queue retainsa memory of which URLs still are to be crawled. Each computer in thefleet can query the queue for the next item to be crawled. The queuethen assigns the item to a particular retrieval computer, and marks theitem as “locked” so that other retrieval computers do not also try towork on the item. Meanwhile, the system monitors whether the retrievalcomputer completes the task in a timely manner. If the retrievalcomputer does not check back with the queue to say that the job is done,then the queue restores the item to “unlocked” so that other computerscan perform the task. Once a computer checks back with the queue andinforms it that the task has been completed the queue removes the itemfrom the queue. Thus, a workflow is established that can be sharedbetween an arbitrary number of retrieval computers where they canoperate simultaneously to work through a list of retrieval tasks.

Pages are retrieved by all computers in the fleet. Each retrievalcomputer is already armed with a URL to retrieve by taking the messagefrom the messaging queue. The computer then executes a function tostream the contents of the remote file (webpage, etc) into memory (inPHP, file_get_contents; in Java, url.openStream( ); etc). The computerthen saves this file to the global storage system (see below). Withrespect to rate of repetition, it should be noted that no singlecomputer hits a given content source too rapidly. Therefore, eachcomputer is “throttled” to only complete one page request every 0.1-10seconds. The use of third party crawlers, discussed above, may obviatethe need to throttle in this manner. Every page request is checked todetermine if it succeeded, and if failure occurs, a longer interval isused before the next attempt. The system can implement differentschedules for the interval rollback, such as an exponential rollback.

The global storage system may be a distributed storage platform (AmazonS3, etc). In the case of Amazon S3, data is stored in buckets that areaccessible from any computer as a URL. Each retrieval computer storesthe contents of the retrieved file in a repository folder on S3 (orother service) as a file path string which is also URL. The file canthus be retrieved at a later date by entering the storage system URL.Access to these repository folders are private so that they can only beaccessed by the system's Content Collection and Content Organizationsystems.

Turning now to content organization, the aim is to take contentcollected from the Internet and organize it for access through theInterface. The input may be a hard drive directory of the latest set ofcollected web pages. The output may be the data uploaded to alarge-scale (but highly organized) database. The output may be generatedby repeating the following process: 1) find a page, 2) parse the pagefor info, 3) match the page to an object in the database, and 4) updatethe database.

Another computer fleet may be deployed to organize the content. As notedabove in the case of retrieval computers, content organization computersmay be replicated by building them from scratch programmatically. Eachcomputer is resurrected from a disk image, such as an Amazon MachineImage (AMI). The AMI is loaded as an elastic computing node on Amazon'sEC2 (elastic cloud computing) or other service using standard librarieswritten in Java. The AMI is armed with everything that the computer willneed, including a Java runtime environment, the capacity to communicatewith a central version control repository such as Git, etc. The AMI isalso armed with a startup script that runs when the EC2 node is born,and receives user parameters passed to the EC2 node at birth. The userparameters to the startup script tell it where to download the latestcode instructions for the node, such as the URL of an S3 location, orthe URL of a Git repository. The startup script is armed with thecredentials to access the latest code instructions, and load the codeonto the new EC2 node. Every EC2 node in the fleet downloads similarinstructions, so they are all prepped around a common task.

Every computer in the Content Organization fleet receives 2 pieces ofinformation (which it is programmed to seek out using in its bootinstructions): 1) the storage space location of the code instructions tobe its brain, 2) the location address of the job queue where it willreceive the material to be processed. The system controls the ContentOrganization fleet by creating and managing the content organizationprocess. The system defines the storage directory of all the pages thatneed to be organized. The system thus turns this directory into a listof jobs, where each job is a file to be processed. The system thencreates a task queue (see below), loads that queue up with the tasks,and sets the properties of the queue to determine the time allotted fortask completion before tasks are recalled and given to other computers.

The task queue may be implemented using Amazon Simple Queue Service(SQS) or some other service that is external to individual computers.The system loads up the job queue with a list of pages that need to beorganized. Each item in the queue is a URL address in global storagespace to a page that needs to be organized. The goal is to distributethose URLs among the many computers. The queue allows computers to takeURLs, and retains a memory of which URLs still must be organized. Eachcomputer in the fleet can query the queue for the next item to becrawled. The queue then assigns the item to the computer, and marks theitem as “locked” so that other computers do not also try to work on theitem. Meanwhile, the system monitors the queue to determine whether thecomputer completes the task in a timely manner. If the computer does notindicate to the queue that the task is done within the allotted time thequeue restores the item to “unlocked” so that other computers can takethe task. Once a computer checks back with the queue to say that it hascompleted the task, the queue removes the task from the queue. Thus, aworkflow is established that can be shared between an arbitrary numberof computers where they can operate simultaneously to work through alist of retrieval tasks.

The global storage system for the Content Collection fleet may be adistributed storage platform (Amazon S3, etc.). In the case of AmazonS3, data is stored in buckets that are accessible from any computer as aURL. Each retrieval computer stores the contents of the retrieved filein a repository folder on S3 (or other service) as a filepath stringwhich is also URL. The file can thus be retrieved at a later date byentering the storage system URL. Access to these repository folders isrestricted so that they can only be accessed by the system's ContentCollection and Content Organization systems.

The system may utilize the following global structure for documentnamespaces: date_retrieved/data_format/content_provider/city/category/.For example: 2011-07-07/xml/google/boston/restaurants/. However,depending on the source of the crawl, the raw data files may not even beorganized into this directory structure yet. In this case the crawlresults should be sorted into files that are organized according to thisstructure.

To sorting raw crawl results, the system first inspects all the filesretrieved during Content Collection and sort them according to theobjects that they represent. One way to do so is inspect the URL of thecrawl. The URL will disclose the content provider, the city/metro area,and category. For sites where this cannot be computed from the URL, thedata can be extracted from elsewhere in the file (address field, etc.)The date of the crawl can be retrieved from the stored file's metadata.The crawl result file (or part of the crawl result file) that applies tothe extracted object can then be saved in the directory structuredescribed above. In this manner, all of the raw crawl results are placedin an organized directory structure to facilitate the subsequentorganization to the database.

The queue is loaded by accessing the storage system directory where thesorted documents are located (see above). The system then spiders thisdirectory to uncover the list of all files within that directory and itssub-directories. The system then creates a job queue (described above)to hold the list of files to parse. Next, the system uploads to thequeue a list of file locations (URLs to the files), as an array ofmessages, to the queue. At this point the queue is loaded with a set offiles to be parsed and organized.

Every time a computer in the fleet goes to the queue and retrieves asorted page to organize, it first analyzes the following informationfrom the URL: the “data format”, which determines how to read the file'sdata; the “content provider”, which determines which page parser toapply; and the “category”, which determines what type of object toextract. The computer already has in its memory all of the differentparsers that it downloaded when it was deployed. The computer picks oneout based on the content provider and data format, and runs it on thefile. Input is the file itself and the output is a data object in memorywith values extracted from the file and stored in fields.

Every time a computer parses a file, and stores its data object inmemory, the data is next added to the database. First, the computer hasto identify the object's location in the database. This is accomplishedby selecting the database table (in Amazon, a domain) based on thecategory of the object, and locating the row of the object by using, indescending order: i) the unique id of the object from the contentprovider (for example, restaurant id on local.yahoo.com), ii) anotherunique numerical identifier, such as the phone number, and iii) name,address, and latitude/longitude fuzzy matching. If the determined entrydoes not already exist, the computer creates a new row. The computerthen runs an update on that row, updating every attribute (field) in asingle database hit for efficiency. This is repeated for every sortedpage that the computers come across in the queue, until all of thesorted pages have been organized into the database.

Next, the system personalizes the content by generating a neural networkarchitecture that connects objects in the world as nodes within anetwork. The system activates a subset of the nodes based on what isknown about the user's affinities. The activations are followed throughthe network to deduce what else the user will like.

The neural network may be implemented as follows. Connections TO a nodea stored as a list of {N1, W1, N2, W2, . . . } where the connected nodesN are paired with their weights W. This list is saved in the database inthe same row as the other properties of the node. Optionally, a list ofconnections FROM the node can also be stored. Subsets of nodes to beactivated are identified by user-provided data regarding likes anddislikes. Users may be required to answer regarding their “favorites” indifferent categories. Users may also provide feedback on recommendationsthat they are given, which can be either binary (approve or disapprove)or they can be continuous (e.g., 1 to 10, or −10 to 10). The systemassembles a list of “positive activation nodes” and assign an activationlevel, which were either favorites (e.g., 10× activation) orfeedback-driven (e.g., 1-10× activation). Similarly, the systemassembles a list of “negative activation nodes” and assigns anactivation level (e.g., −1× to −10×).

Connections are established by, for every node in the user's list,accessing in the database the set of common co-occurrences with thatobject on the web. The system retrieves this list of objects and buildsconnections from our node to those objects with five positive synapseseach.

Connections also may be based on feature similarity. For every node inthe user's list, the system identifies nodes with similar properties.For the category to be matched, the system takes the most salientproperties (e.g., for a restaurant, price, cuisine and ambiance) andsearches the database for other restaurants that match that feature set.Each match generates two positive synapses.

Connections also may be established based on cross-visitation. For everynode in the user's list, the system identifies nodes that have beencross-visited by other users. These users can be users of the system(e.g., users of a subscription service associated with the system) oractivity elsewhere on the Internet about which the system has data. Thismay be accomplished by indexing the reviews and responses to all nodes.The system identifies strong responses to the node of interest,identifies the users that furnished those responses, and identifiesother nodes to which those users had similarly strong responses. Thesystem can connect those nodes to our node of interest, with onepositive synapse for every similar response.

Negative synapses can facilitate the recommendation process by factoringin what the user does not like and the things that are not like thingsthat the user does like. Both of these associates involve negativesynapses, which add richness to the representation. For example, thesystem can identify strong responses to the node of interest, identifyusers that made those responses, and identify other nodes to which thoseusers had opposite strong responses. Alternatively, the system canidentify nodes that the user did not like, identify other people who didnot like that node, identify nodes that those people did like andpositively link those nodes to our user's preferences.

Sometimes the network may exhibit “runaway connectivity” where somethinggets more connected, which then gives it an advantage in getting furtherconnected (e.g., more co-occurrences) which in turn tends to generateeven further connections. Therefore the system may normalizeconnectivity by inspecting the list of existing connections to a node,determining their total value (e.g., # connections N×average weight W),and in the event that total value exceeds some threshold, divide all ofthe connection weights by a constant value to bring them back intorange. This may be repeated for all nodes. Normalization alternativelycan be accomplished by dividing based on the N*W term going TO the node,dividing based on the N*W term coming FROM the node, dividing by thetotal N*W term across the network. The implementation for this mayinvolve reading the list of node weights in the database, performing thenormalization on those weights, and writing the new weights back to thedatabase.

The addition of a new synapse connecting nodes can also immediatelyimpact other connections. Upon adding the connection to the list, theother connections to that node can be “taxed” by an amount equal to theinverse of their proportion of the new connection's strength—that is,adding a +1 synapse then taxes the other 10 synapses already on thatnode by 1/10=0.1. When synapses become so weak that they are below acertain threshold (either through interaction taxing or throughnormalization), then they are removed (deleted from the list).

Connections from node to node can be constantly analyzed, updated andconsolidated to take into account patterns that emerge between nodes. Asa simple example, if A forms a strong link to B, and A forms a stronglink to C, then a connection can be consolidated linking B and C. Suchpatterns can be searched for using specialized scripts that check thedatabase entries for such patterns, and then write back consolidationchanges to the affected nodes' lists.

The result of all of these processes is a rich information base thataccurately links a huge variety of nodes to a user's established nodesof interest, with a significant dynamic range, and with substantialretrieval efficiency.

To retrieve the list of nodes related to a user, the system need onlythen “activate” the user's established nodes, and follow theirconnections to retrieve more nodes that if connected sufficientlystrongly will also activate, and depending on the initial activationstrength follow those connections to further nodes until the activationpeters out with each connection hop depending on the connectionstrength. The connection strength is therefore the inverse of theresistance to the propagation of the activation through the network.

The total list of nodes that was effectively activated by this process(recommendation set) can then be stored in a list that is linked to theuser in the database, for retrieval with a single database callwhereupon the list can be cross-referenced against a set of presentedresults. Optionally, different sub-lists can be stored for differentcategories, or different presentation scenarios, caching the results forfast personalization.

The user interface may comprise i) a set of HTML files that define thelook and feel of the web interface, with design elements styled usingcascading style sheets (CSS), iii) a server-side set of scripts thatdynamically generate those HTML files using a backend scripting language(PHP, etc) running on a web server (Apache, etc.), iii) a client-sideset of scripts and interface libraries that allows rich user interactionwithin the browser (Javascript, jQuery, etc.), and iv) a backenddatabase that provides the data to the web application (Amazon SimpleDB,etc.).

The functionality of the user interface includes permitting the user tocreate an account and log in using secure credentials that are verifiedagainst an encrypted user table in our backend database. The interfacealso allows a user to browse objects and see whether they arerecommended or not. The interface allows a user to filter those objectsby city, by category, and then by a host of properties pertinent tothose categories. The user can enter feedback on their recommendationsby clicking on thumbs up/thumbs down or other feedback mechanisms. Theinterface allows a user to drag and drop recommendations onto a “beingconsidered” area where they can be compared across different parametersusing sortable headers, etc. The interface allows a user to drag anobject onto their calendar in order to “action” it by going to theobject at a certain time. The interface allows a user to build events,such as “My New York City Trip” where the user can create a group ofrestaurants, hotels, and other opportunities that have been recommended.The user can enter notes about their recommendations to remindthemselves of various impressions, for example. The user can print out acopy of itineraries for their events, or email those itineraries tothemselves. Their calendar is also synchronized with the global calendaron their smart phones, etc. The user can share their recommendationswith others, or build events and share those with others.

The interface may be delivered via a scalable cloud architecture. Webservers run as Linux CPU nodes on Amazon's elastic cloud computing (EC2)system. Web servers receive independent IP addresses using Elastic IP orother IP address mediators. Web servers are monitored for load, andusers are dynamically distributed among the servers. Excessive user loadtrips a threshold which leads to the creation of more EC2 nodes. Whenuser load drops too low, that trips a threshold which leads to thedelete of EC2 nodes to save cost.

A list of all recommended objects is pre-computed for the user. When theuser requests objects via the interface, the system simply checks to IDsof those objects prior to presentation to see whether the objects appearon the recommended list or not. In another iteration, thepersonalization is computed in real time with no pre-cached list ofrecommended objects. In this example, as objects were going to bepresented through the interface, they are run through thepersonalization engine at that moment to compute if they are recommendedor not.

In some examples, the server and/or client device (e.g. desktop computeror smart phone) are implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or incomputer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations of them. Theapparatus is optionally implemented in a computer program producttangibly embodied in an information carrier, e.g., in a machine-readablestorage device or in a propagated signal, for execution by aprogrammable processor; and method steps are performed by a programmableprocessor executing a program of instructions to perform functions ofthe described implementations by operating on input data and generatingoutput. The described features are optionally implemented advantageouslyin one or more computer programs that are executable on a programmablesystem including at least one programmable processor coupled to receivedata and instructions from, and to transmit data and instructions to, adata storage system, at least one input device, and at least one outputdevice. A computer program is a set of instructions that are optionallyused, directly or indirectly, in a computer to perform a certainactivity or bring about a certain result. A computer program isoptionally written in any form of programming language, includingcompiled or interpreted languages, and it is deployed in any form,including as a stand-alone program or as a module, component,subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment.

Suitable processors for the execution of a program of instructionsinclude, by way of example, both general and special purposemicroprocessors, and the sole processor or one of multiple processors ofany kind of computer. Generally, a processor will receive instructionsand data from a read-only memory or a random access memory or both. Theessential elements of a computer are a processor for executinginstructions and one or more memories for storing instructions and data.Generally, a computer will also include, or be operatively coupled tocommunicate with, one or more mass storage devices for storing datafiles; such devices include magnetic disks, such as internal hard disksand removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and optical disks. Storagedevices suitable for tangibly embodying computer program instructionsand data include all forms of non-volatile memory, including by way ofexample semiconductor memory devices, such as EPROM, EEPROM, and flashmemory devices; magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removabledisks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks. Theprocessor and the memory are optionally supplemented by, or incorporatedin, ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits).

To provide for interaction with a user, the features in some instancesare implemented on a computer having a display device such as an LCD(liquid crystal display) monitor or screen for displaying information tothe user and, in the case of a desktop computer, a keyboard and apointing device such as a mouse or a trackball by which the userprovides input to the computer.

In various implementations, the client device is a smart phone such asthat described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,966,578, entitled “PortableMultifunction Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface forTranslating Displayed Content,” assigned to Apple, Inc., which isincorporated herein by reference.

The server functionality described above is optionally implemented in acomputer system that includes a back-end component, such as a dataserver, or that includes a middleware component, such as an applicationserver or an Internet server, or that includes a front-end component,such as a client computer having a graphical user interface or anInternet browser, or any combination of them. The components of thesystem are connected by any form or medium of digital data communicationsuch as a communication network. Examples of communication networksinclude, e.g., a LAN, a WAN, and the computers and networks forming theInternet.

The computer system optionally includes clients and servers. A clientand server are generally remote from each other and typically interactthrough a network, such as the described one. The relationship of clientand server arises by virtue of computer programs running on therespective computers and having a client-server relationship to eachother.

A number of embodiments have been described. Nevertheless, it will beunderstood that various modifications are optionally made withoutdeparting from the spirit and scope of this disclosure. Accordingly,other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method comprising: receiving, at at least oneserver, attribute data for a plurality of users, the data relating to aplurality of attributes of a user and to at least a first venue forwhich the user has an affinity; receiving, at the at least one server,venue data for a plurality of venues, the venue data relating to aplurality of attributes of the venues; receiving, at the at least oneserver, review data for the plurality of venues, the review datareflecting the ratings of a plurality of reviewers for the plurality ofvenues; accessing, via the at least one server, a data networkcomprising nodes corresponding at least to the plurality of venues andthe plurality of reviewers and further comprising links between saidnodes, each link reflecting a strength of an interrelationship betweenat least two nodes, wherein at least a plurality of the link strengthsare a function of at least the review data and the venue data, arefurther a function of both content-based and collaborativeinterrelationships, and are based in part on connection growth fromcollaborative interrelationships; determining, at the at least oneserver and based on the link strengths and at least one venue parameter,a plurality of recommended venues having the strongest links to a user;generating, at the at least one server, recommendation data comprisingat least one recommended venue; and serving to a client device therecommendation data for display on a screen of the client device,wherein at least some of the collaborative interrelationships are afunction of venues having ratings from the same reviewer.
 2. The methodof claim 1, wherein at least a plurality of the link strengths arefurther a function of content-collaborative interrelationships.
 3. Themethod of claim 1, wherein at least a plurality of the links aredirectionally asymmetric.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the datanetwork is configured to be dynamically updated by localized arithmeticoperations on affected links.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the datanetwork comprises a first data structure for collaborative links and asecond data structure, discrete from the first structure, forcontent-based links.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the review datais gathered from third party review web sites.
 7. The method of claim 1,further comprising retrieving and parsing cached search engine pagesincluding reviews of venues.
 8. The method of claim 1, where the linkstrengths are based in part on connection creep from collaborativeinterrelationships.
 9. The method of claim 1, where the link strengthsare based in part on second order interrelationships between venues. 10.The method of claim 1, further comprising serving a user interfacecomprising an overview section vertically disposed above a venuecomparison section which is vertically disposed above a reservationssection.
 11. A method for providing venue recommendations on a clientdevice, comprising: transmitting, from the client device to at least oneserver device, attribute data for a user, the data relating to aplurality of attributes of a user and to at least a first venue forwhich the user has an affinity; transmitting, from the client device tothe at least one server device, a recommendation request including atleast one venue attribute; receiving, from the at least one serverdevice, data identifying a plurality of recommended venues, eachrecommended venue being selected based on the strength of a nodalinterrelationship between the venue and the user within a data networkcomprising nodes corresponding at least to a plurality of venues and aplurality of reviewers and further comprising links between said nodes,each link reflecting a strength of an interrelationship between at leasttwo nodes, wherein at least a plurality of the link strengths are afunction of venue data relating to a plurality of attributes of thevenues and review data reflecting the ratings of a plurality ofreviewers for the plurality of venues, and wherein at least a pluralityof the link strengths are further a function of both content-based andcollaborative interrelationships and are based in part on connectiongrowth from collaborative interrelationships; and displaying, on ascreen of the client device, data identifying the plurality ofrecommended venues, wherein at least some of the collaborativeinterrelationships are a function of venues having ratings from the samereviewer.
 12. The method of claim 11, wherein at least a plurality ofthe link strengths are further a function of content-collaborativeinterrelationships.
 13. The method of claim 11, wherein at least aplurality of the links are directionally asymmetric.
 14. The method ofclaim 11, wherein the data network is configured to be dynamicallyupdated by localized arithmetic operations on affected links.
 15. Themethod of claim 11, wherein the data network comprises a first datastructure for collaborative links and a second data structure, discretefrom the first structure, for content-based links.
 16. The method ofclaim 11, wherein the review data is gathered from third party reviewweb sites.
 17. The method of claim 11, further comprising retrieving andparsing cached search engine pages including reviews of venues.
 18. Themethod of claim 11, where the link strengths are based in part onconnection creep from collaborative interrelationships.
 19. The methodof claim 11, where the link strengths are based in part on second orderinterrelationships between venues.
 20. The method of claim 11, whereineach affinity is optionally negative.
 21. The method of claim 11,further comprising displaying, on the client device, a user interfacecomprising an overview section vertically disposed above a venuecomparison section which is vertically disposed above a reservationssection.
 22. The method of claim 1, wherein the connection growth is afunction of venues having at least two collaborative interrelationships.23. The method of claim 11, wherein the connection growth is a functionof venues having at least two collaborative interrelationships.